Top 5 Issues in 2012: Transportation
As 2012 dawns, there is still no agreement on new legislation to authorize federal surface transportation programs, and much of the transportation funding states received from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is gone. While some state and territorial governments (“the states”) have used this time of uncertainty at the federal level to move forward on their own to creatively fund infrastructure improvements, others appear to be hunkering down, making the decision to do only maintenance on existing facilities and hoping they can ride out the lack of revenues, shaky economy and growing infrastructure needs until better times are upon us. Here are the top five issues in transportation for 2012.
Defining a New National Vision and Purpose for the Federal Transportation Program
- One underlying reason for the lack of agreement at the federal level regarding investment in the nation’s transportation system is a lack of agreement on the role the federal government should play in transportation. Some suggest the federal program should return to core national interests, such as managing and preserving existing assets, improving safety, ensuring the mobility of freight and tackling important, tough-to-finance projects. States will play an important role in helping to define a new national vision for transportation that can capture the imagination and support of the public and its leaders at both the state and federal levels to move infrastructure forward.
- Localizing Transportation
Capturing the public’s imagination also may require localizing transportation—defining specifically how states, localities and even individual commuters stand to benefit from specific transportation projects. In Georgia this year, for example, voters will decide on a region-by-region basis whether to approve a 1-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation projects in their part of the state. Regardless of what happens there though, states are likely to experiment more in the years ahead with these sort of targeted approaches. Some states already have a track record in winning support for things like local bond issues and dedicated taxes when they are tied to specific projects.
- Moving Toward Data-Driven Decision-Making in Transportation
Many believe the U.S. should develop programs to ensure it is investing in the most “shovel-worthy” projects, those with the potential for long-term job creation and economic development. That will require new levels of accountability and transparency, as well as the development of new performance measures and tools to perform cost-benefit analyses and measure return-on-investment. A number of states—including Arkansas, California, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Oregon and Texas—are already moving forward to develop the metrics needed to make assessment of our transportation investments a reality.
- Streamlining Project Delivery
States are also likely to play an important role in improving the processes under which transportation projects are completed if, as expected, the next federal authorization bill makes reforms a priority. Possible targets for reform include streamlining project delivery by reducing the number of funding categories, providing greater flexibility to states to spend federal dollars, and allowing concurrent completion of environmental requirements and other project stages. States are likely to continue pursuing creative public-private partnerships in transportation to take advantage of private sector innovations and efficiencies.
- Convincing the Skeptics
For those state policymakers who believe additional investment in infrastructure is needed, one of their biggest challenges in 2012 may be convincing a skeptical public. It may require them to take political risks by helping to educate the public on the ongoing costs of infrastructure, the fiscal challenges facing state governments, the unsustainable nature of current transportation revenue sources and the kinds of projects that will be needed to modernize the nation’s transportation system.
Construction Industry Forecasts
Notes from Alex Carrick - Oct 06, 2011
Some of the most interesting and revealing economic news these days has to do with transportation in one form or another – oil pipelines, shipping ports and airlines. The issues encapsulate not only current concerns about the economy, but also long-term trends.
Keystone XL Pipeline Project - Jobs vs. Environment?
For example, the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project highlights one key point of conflict – that which exists between the need for more jobs and the threat of damage to the environment. U.S. regulatory agencies have already given approval to the project. The final say rests with President Obama. He is facing quite a dilemma. The 2012 presidential election race is clearly going to be fought on the issue of job creation. That provides a strong argument for proceeding with Keystone construction – as, of course, does lining up a friendly source of supply, but that’s a different matter.
In Canada, each one-billion-dollars-worth of construction leads to 5,000 man-years of direct employment – a figure derived by simply dividing the total value of construction by the total number of jobs in the industry, both figures supplied by Statistics Canada. The multiplier effect is at least two- and maybe closer to three-times as much. Included would be professionals whose practices are closely tied to construction – engineers and architects, realtors, property lawyers and some accountants – plus line workers who make building products. Further indirect employment results from what all of the foregoing individuals spend on other goods and services, such as restaurant meals, haircuts, home furnishings and so on.
The figures in the U.S. are surely similar. But there are also hard-core Democrats who believe one of the Party’s main platforms would be watered down by a too-easy approval for TransCanada’s pipeline to the Gulf Coast – the promise to protect the environment. That’s wherein the debate rages.
What needs to be examined is the validity of the argument that there is a conflict. Where are tomorrow’s needed jobs going to come from? Where are the best opportunities to take a lead on the world stage? It’s not in simply saying “no” to industrial development. It’s in striving our hardest to ensure capital projects take place in a manner that’s as environmentally responsible as possible. Among a host of other opportunities, that means good scientific jobs in remediation research and administrative jobs in compliance monitoring.
Some unions in Canada are opposed to the Keystone project due to a different take on the employment question. It’s their contention that too many jobs will end up being located in the U.S. Value-added upgrading work will mostly take place south of the border. But that’s the reality when a market of 34 million lives next to one of 311 million. There are economies of scale.
The opposition of Canadian unions overlooks the difference between theoretical jobs and actual work firmly committed due to expansion of extraction sites and relatively modest (while still “mega”) plans for upgrading facilities. Oil Sands capacity additions, which knowingly account for so much employment, are under threat from more jurisdictions than just the U.S. They are also coming under fire in Europe. A proposal there would see our extracted oil labeled as “dirty”. Attaching a higher carbon-content rating versus what is simply pumped out of the ground will potentially add to its cost. It would mean extra charges under European cap and trade provisions.
This seems to be a gratuitous slap in the face. No Alberta oil is actually sold in Europe. Europe does buy “dirty” oil from Russia and Nigeria. What’s the “beef” with Canadian oil? Is this an effort to make Europeans feel better about the fact they are paying more for oil than in North America?
The Polictics of Energy
To no-one’s surprise, it appears politics is again playing a role in energy pricing.
Production from North Sea oil fields is in long-term decline and Europe has felt most of the brunt of supply disruptions arising from the Arab Spring. Italy was particularly “inconvenienced” by disruptions in supply from Libya. The discrepancy between higher-priced Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate has widened considerably.
Beleaguered on a couple of fronts, Canada needs to facilitate shipments of oil to Asian customers. Such a delivery system would probably move crude by pipeline or rail tanker car to Prince Rupert, B.C. This segues into discussion of another trade issue that has cropped up.
Port Pressure
Prince Rupert and the port of Vancouver are coming under attack for reasons that turn on both the jobs issue and increasing U.S. protectionism. Under pressure from mainly Californian port authorities, the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission is investigating whether some Canadian harbors are luring away ship traffic. Significant upgrades to the port of Prince Rupert over the past several years, involving some government subsidies, have presented an excuse to take retaliatory action, supposedly on the grounds of unfair advantage. However, those expenditures have only helped Prince Rupert realize more of its potential. Both Prince Rupert and Vancouver have natural advantages that are increasingly coming to the fore.
This dispute is reminiscent of similar cases in the past, most notably the ongoing softwood lumber “brouhaha” that has been in and out of the courts for more than 100 years. Over the years, the matter of who’s right – and Canadian lumber producers have won more than their fair share of court battles – has meant little versus the economic clout of the opposition. Possible denial of access to the vast U.S. market is a trump card that often wins concessions from Canadian producers, regardless of the merit of the cause. In its most recent incarnation (i.e., the “softwood lumber agreement”) Canadian producers have been glad to secure at least some assured sales to U.S. buyers, based on historical patterns, while having to pay a penalty to raise their share.
The fact is that investments to expand capacity and increase efficiency at Prince Rupert have made that port an attractive destination for Asian shipping. The favored East-West route to cross the Pacific leads vessels to berths at sites along B.C.’s northern coast a day or two faster than if they proceed further south to Los Angeles. Goods shipped from China can therefore reach Chicago by rail faster from B.C. than from shoreline U.S. states, cutting down on delays and reducing overall transportation costs.
Adding to the cost of the U.S. anchorage is the Harbor Maintenance Tax. Revenues collected are used to pay for dredging. Some U.S. legislators would like to see a levy charged on Asian rail cargo shipped by train through Canada to the United States.
For the construction industry, these trade disputes aren’t just matters of academic interest. How they are resolved directly impacts where investment dollars are spent.
Airline Industry Vulnerable
This article began in Part 1 with a statement that various transportation issues are highlighting current economic concerns and long-term trends. Having already featured energy pipelines and port facilities, that leaves airlines. Their problems are emblematic of the world economic slowdown. More cautious tourism and business travel is expected to knock the stuffing out of earnings in the airline industry. We’ve seen this scenario before. Over the course of the next 12 to 18 months, a couple of major aerospace passenger and cargo carriers are likely to need bankruptcy protection. The lucky one(s) will be saved by a white knight that offers a friendly takeover.
Airline stocks have been pummeled of late. AMR Corp., the parent of American Airlines has been judged especially vulnerable.
What is the process of marketing to and attracting businesses to TOD?
From large-scale developments like Union Station to smaller ones near planned outlying FasTracks stations, there is a need to attract businesses to anchor the developments. Landing DaVita was huge for Union Station, but are any other big fish on the way? What can we do from an economic development policy standpoint to ensure that others will follow? And what about bringing in the small, local businesses to the smaller stations? Are the developers able to make the leases affordable? Einstein's and Starbucks are fine, but unique, homegrown businesses are what will make these developments special.
Building Transit Oriented Community in Oakland's Chinatown
Home is more than simply a place. It is a connection to a community of people, the comforts of familiar sights and sounds, and the sense of belonging. As history has shown us, numerous urban “renewal” efforts in the name of eliminating blight disregarded people’s visions for their homes, resulting in displacement of individuals and disintegration of communities. Today, the trend is to promote transit oriented development (TOD) in the name of addressing climate change. But if development is done inequitably, it represents the latest challenge to low-income communities of color.
Oakland Chinatown’s history is one of survival in the midst of continual acts of displacement. The first Chinese immigrants who formed various Chinatowns in Oakland during the 1850s had been driven from the fields of the Gold Rush by racist, hostile miners. Later, intense racism would cause some of these Chinatowns to move—as with the settlement at San Pablo Avenue and 19th Street—or be eliminated altogether—as when the Chinatown at Telegraph Avenue and 17th Street burned down. Eventually, the Chinese community was consolidated in the area around 8th and Webster Streets.
Roy Chan of the Oakland Asian Cultural Center has been documenting this history, particularly because as time continues to march forward, much knowledge has been lost to the current residents. “The reason why we wanted to tell a complete story of the blocks that used to be there is because more recent immigrants do not have any idea of what happened,” says Chan.
“The Oakland Chinatown Oral History Project is a way to personalize and humanize the story—to show that these were real homes that were built over the decades and taken away,” he explains. “We want to equip the community to know its own history and to speak on its own behalf.”
A key turning point for the neighborhood came in the mid 1960s. In 1965, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) agency, working with the city, redeveloped three blocks in Chinatown—demolishing existing buildings and relocating Madison Square Park to create the Lake Merritt BART station and BART headquarters. Destroyed in the process were 75 homes, an orphanage for girls, and the Chinese True Sunshine Episcopal Church.
“Leaving that church was more traumatic for my mother than leaving her house. In my lifetime, I only saw my mother crying twice. Once was when her biological mother died, the other time was when they took away the church property,” says Fran Toy, former resident of the area. “After the church was moved, we lost congregation members by the drove. And I remember one Sunday going to church, the priest and I were the only two people there.”(See sidebar on page 66 for a detailed account of Toy’s experience.)
More recently, tenants received eviction notices from the Pacific Renaissance Plaza in 2003. As Amber Chan of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) recalls, “At the time, they evicted low-income elderly and families from 50 units. We knew we had to fight to stop the evictions. I remember one tenant saying ‘I am not a dead rat. You cannot throw me to the street. I will stay here and fight you.’”
Then in 2006, BART decided to demolish its headquarters and close down the Lake Merritt station plaza, leaving the neighborhood without a vital community space for tai-chi, chi gong, and lion dancing. The community collected over 1500 petition signatures and raised $35,000 to create a space at Madison Park, but the funding was not enough to cover other needed services, such as public restrooms and a covered pavilion.
Transit Oriented Displacement: Circa 2012
Now, Chinatown is once again at the heart of another development process. The push to develop housing, jobs, and neighborhoods near transit is an opportunity to create green, walkable, transit-friendly communities that will reduce car usage and greenhouse gas emissions. However, development without equity can result in the displacement of core transit users, such as renters and low-income households, and an influx of higher income, car-owning residents who are less likely to use public transit, thereby defeating the goal of development near transit. A study by the Center for Community Innovation at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Urban and Regional Development has shown that the area around Chinatown and the Lake Merritt BART station is highly susceptible to gentrification. Fruitvale and West Oakland are examples of areas that have experienced rent increases, evictions, and loss of affordable housing as a result of such development.
Given the history of displacement, there is a lot of fear in Chinatown of being excluded from the decision-making during this round of redevelopment.
“When it comes down to the community, the citizens who live in Chinatown are usually last,” says Alan Yee, an Oakland-based attorney, in a recent KALW news report. “In redevelopment, they look to the developers and what they want and forget what the community needs. Unfortunately, when BART came in, the community wasn’t organized, so they were able to take the land without any community input or compensation to the community.”[1]
Oakland Chinatown’s history is one of survival in the midst of continual acts of displacement. The first Chinese immigrants who formed various Chinatowns in Oakland during the 1850s had been driven from the fields of the Gold Rush by racist, hostile miners. Later, intense racism would cause some of these Chinatowns to move—as with the settlement at San Pablo Avenue and 19th Street—or be eliminated altogether—as when the Chinatown at Telegraph Avenue and 17th Street burned down. Eventually, the Chinese community was consolidated in the area around 8th and Webster Streets.
Roy Chan of the Oakland Asian Cultural Center has been documenting this history, particularly because as time continues to march forward, much knowledge has been lost to the current residents. “The reason why we wanted to tell a complete story of the blocks that used to be there is because more recent immigrants do not have any idea of what happened,” says Chan.
“The Oakland Chinatown Oral History Project is a way to personalize and humanize the story—to show that these were real homes that were built over the decades and taken away,” he explains. “We want to equip the community to know its own history and to speak on its own behalf.”
A key turning point for the neighborhood came in the mid 1960s. In 1965, the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) agency, working with the city, redeveloped three blocks in Chinatown—demolishing existing buildings and relocating Madison Square Park to create the Lake Merritt BART station and BART headquarters. Destroyed in the process were 75 homes, an orphanage for girls, and the Chinese True Sunshine Episcopal Church.
“Leaving that church was more traumatic for my mother than leaving her house. In my lifetime, I only saw my mother crying twice. Once was when her biological mother died, the other time was when they took away the church property,” says Fran Toy, former resident of the area. “After the church was moved, we lost congregation members by the drove. And I remember one Sunday going to church, the priest and I were the only two people there.”(See sidebar on page 66 for a detailed account of Toy’s experience.)
More recently, tenants received eviction notices from the Pacific Renaissance Plaza in 2003. As Amber Chan of the Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN) recalls, “At the time, they evicted low-income elderly and families from 50 units. We knew we had to fight to stop the evictions. I remember one tenant saying ‘I am not a dead rat. You cannot throw me to the street. I will stay here and fight you.’”
Then in 2006, BART decided to demolish its headquarters and close down the Lake Merritt station plaza, leaving the neighborhood without a vital community space for tai-chi, chi gong, and lion dancing. The community collected over 1500 petition signatures and raised $35,000 to create a space at Madison Park, but the funding was not enough to cover other needed services, such as public restrooms and a covered pavilion.
Transit Oriented Displacement: Circa 2012
Now, Chinatown is once again at the heart of another development process. The push to develop housing, jobs, and neighborhoods near transit is an opportunity to create green, walkable, transit-friendly communities that will reduce car usage and greenhouse gas emissions. However, development without equity can result in the displacement of core transit users, such as renters and low-income households, and an influx of higher income, car-owning residents who are less likely to use public transit, thereby defeating the goal of development near transit. A study by the Center for Community Innovation at UC Berkeley’s Institute of Urban and Regional Development has shown that the area around Chinatown and the Lake Merritt BART station is highly susceptible to gentrification. Fruitvale and West Oakland are examples of areas that have experienced rent increases, evictions, and loss of affordable housing as a result of such development.
Given the history of displacement, there is a lot of fear in Chinatown of being excluded from the decision-making during this round of redevelopment.
“When it comes down to the community, the citizens who live in Chinatown are usually last,” says Alan Yee, an Oakland-based attorney, in a recent KALW news report. “In redevelopment, they look to the developers and what they want and forget what the community needs. Unfortunately, when BART came in, the community wasn’t organized, so they were able to take the land without any community input or compensation to the community.”[1]
“Community engagement is definitely important because of the history of these processes in Chinatown,” states Julia Liou of AHS. “Traditionally, our communities haven’t been part of the planning process. Usually, it’s just a flyer that goes out. So, it’s important to advocate for the needs identified by the community.”
“We really want to see a neighborhood that is a place where people choose to live and have the ability to afford to live, regardless of their economic condition,” says Ener Chiu of EBALDC. “The plan should provide the kind of cultural, business, public, and educational amenities that would make people want to live here.”
Li Ya Chen, a member of APEN, says, “When I first arrived in the Bay Area, my monthly income was only about one thousand dollars, but the rental of a one-bedroom apartment was over $700. It was very difficult to survive. I heard about low-income housing, but I was at a loss because I didn’t know where and how to apply. The Lake Merritt BART project should be for people at all income levels. Affordable housing should include extremely low-income folks.”
Shao Yang Zhang, another member of APEN, believes that public safety, employment, and housing issues are related to each other. “To solve the problem of public safety, we must solve the job and housing issues because they are the root causes of the problem,” she points out. “The more housing complexes, the more supporting facilities you will need to provide employment opportunities to the local community and help enhance the people’s standard of living. If everyone has a job and stable place to live, the crime issue will be improved. Oakland could become a model city for the nation.”
In addition to the issues of housing, jobs, and public safety, many community members also cite the need for greater pedestrian safety. “My apartment is located right next to a crossroad that often has a lot of car accidents. Two years ago, my neighbor, Mrs. Chan, was hit and killed by a car,” recalls Hai Bo Pan, another APEN member. “Not long after, another gentleman was hit by a car at the same location, and he was seriously injured.”
Chinatown, it is important to remember, is not just a community for Chinese. As Tô Châu, a Vietnamese patient at AHS points out, “Chinatown is important because it is an Asian place where I can get food that I can’t get in other areas. I do want it to be improved. Some housing is so old, it is a sad sight. In the next 20 years, I want to see this neighborhood improve, and I hope to have more parks.”
The planning process is now moving into the stage where a community stakeholder group—comprised of about 50 people representing the institutions and constituents of the area—will be working on shaping the plan over the next several months. “I am hopeful that we can fix the problems together,” says APEN member Hui Zhen Li. “If we can make this plan meaningful and the city does what it promises, the area will be beautiful.”
Green minimalist style of architecture 2012
Trends in occupancy in 2012 still refers to the trend of previous years. Residential-style minimalism still become mainstream next year. Additionally, the concept of environmentally friendly would accompany such a minimalist concept. Architectural style trends for 2012 not much has changed. Judging from developments in the field of existing designs, minimalist trend is still going to have a sales value next year. Selling in a sense, seeing the public interest in choosing a dwelling. Until there is one case, one of the developers who are sufficiently established or established forced to buy back process, to save profits. The idea is to buy back the forces of the Mediterranean-style house that still turned out in a cluster are not sold much. By the developer that bought it back and then torn down and built a house with a new model, namely the concept of minimalism.
The reason they still see the trend of minimalism as future trends. If the production cost model with the minimalist style of other buildings more or less the same. But if practically minimalist type of building is easy, it’s wrong because it’s minimalist minimal detail. That is, if we make a box, it means that its shape should really box. However, it would be like if the minimalist in 2012?, Minimalist to 2012 will tend toward the minimalist green.
Green minimalist it is not simply providing an artificial garden in a house alone. But, greenhouse effect, the use of materials that are environmentally friendly such as the use of lightweight steel. Another example, using materials that nature does not destroy the forests, such as wood, metal, and stone. If necessary the use of construction materials that already exist may be better. For example, tree roots are made to the table. We have had a lot of the discourse down to the supermarket, raising to use materials that are environmentally friendly it is already there.
So also in terms of design, ranging from the room and form a layer of not sticking to one style. However, more attuned to the needs of the occupants. What is meant not only maximizing minimalist green plants alone, but was more in his understanding. That is, it’s minimalist green to the use of building materials and workmanship that are environmentally friendly buildings. Moreover, green building architecture minimalist style could be a culture in the use of everyday home appliances. For example, the efficient use of electricity, water treatment is necessary, use more energy-efficient lamps. The main minimize the use of the greenhouse effect on the building.
Jones Lang LaSalle: sustainability trends to watch in 2012
January 6, 2012—Just 10 years ago, being a good steward of the environment wasn't as critical of a focus as it is now for companies hoping to attract and maintain customers and building owners in need of new tenants. Now, companies and building owners without an agenda to improve their sustainability are nearly as hard to find as ones without a Web site. As we go into year 2012, Dan Probst, chairman of energy and sustainability services at Jones Lang LaSalle, a financial and professional services firm specializing in real estate, has outlined what he expects to be major sustainability trends driven by companies and building owners, as well as cities and nations.
Probst's trends to watch for are:
- Transparency: Buildings, companies and cities are measuring and disclosing energy usage, carbon emissions and other information relating to sustainability. Commercial building owners don't always have a choice: five major U.S. cities and two states have enacted energy performance measurement and disclosure policies to date, and nine more cities and states have bills under considerations, to help tenants and investors make better informed decisions. Buildings in Europe are required to display energy performance certificates, and Australia is implementing similar requirements.
- Global Consistency: Deeper sustainability reporting by cities and multi-national corporations has intensified the need for consistent ways to measure the effectiveness of energy, water and other sustainability strategies on a worldwide basis. Given the wide regional variation in environmental priorities around the world, the end goal may not be a single global standard, but a way to translate local government and business practices into a common global vocabulary for measuring effectiveness and recognizing achievement. The U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building sustainability rating system is now frequently pursued in many countries with their own systems, as owners seek to attract international tenants. ENERGY STAR, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) energy-benchmarking standard, will soon be able to provide accurate ratings across North America, thanks to a new cooperative agreement with Canada. And in 2011, the International Organization for Standardization released the ISO 50001 standard for energy management systems, which includes specifications for measurement, documentation and reporting on energy consumption.
- Public/Private Collaboration: 2011 stood out as a year when government and business organizations explored their shared green goals and realized that public-private partnerships and collaborative initiatives are often the best way to overcome obstacles to sustainability. Some of these joint efforts will start to bear fruit in 2012. A clear example of this, Probst says, is the December announcement of a $4 billion energy retrofit commitment by the U.S. federal government and 60 CEOs (chief executive officers), mayors, university presidents, and labor leaders. Called the Better Buildings Challenge, the eight-year initiative includes $2 billion in energy upgrades of federal buildings and another $2 billion of private capital to improve energy by 20 percent in buildings totaling 1.5 billion square feet.
- Focus on Solar Energy: 2011 was a breakthrough year for new installations in the United States, and continued growth is seen for 2012, albeit at a slower pace. More than 1 giga-watt of photovoltaic solar energy capacity was installed across the United States in the first three quarters of 2011, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. By comparison, 887 megawatts came online in all of 2010, which represented a doubling of the total installed base at the time.
